Genesis 1 As Recovery From Global Catastrophe

[Freedom]

Some on on another site referred me to this link to explain why the bible is full of pseudoscience:

http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBiblicalPseudoscience63.htm

But on this page, I discovered the following opinion stated about Genesis 1 which I found quite intriguing and gives support to the idea of pre-adomites. So, Adam was not the first man, but perhaps the only survivor. He was put in the garden to protect him from the destruction elsewhere, in the same way as the ark protected Noah.

So-called "Scientific Creationists" defend the idea of a 6,000-year-old Universe. Others are more flexible.

Genesis 1 described to ancient Jews how the world they observed around themselves originated. When comparing Genesis with science the Scientific Creationist approach is not the only way.

In previous Investigator debate I reasoned that: "Genesis 1:1 is a summary of the account to follow." (Newman et al 1977)

Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heavens (=sky) and the earth (=Land)." Verses 2 & 3 describe the world as already existing "in the beginning" but in a state of destruction – lifeless, windswept, dark and the land covered by the oceans.

In other words the creation story of six days in Genesis chapter 1 is not a story of God creating the whole Universe from nothing but rather a story of God restoring this planet after some great catastrophe. The six days of creation describe what a hypothetical observer at land or sea level would have observed when "God created" and restored the land, light, life and sky on our world. (Investigator 54)

This understanding of Genesis allows for life on Earth prior to some great catastrophe followed by the creation (as in Genesis 1) of living things along the same lines and plans as existed before. It's a scenario for "creation" that could allow for what is known – as distinct from theory and opinion – about biology, evolution, geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc.

The Bible sets no date, such as 6,000 years, to the creation "days". The New Testament teaches that God is the ultimate creator of everything. Therefore long before the time of Genesis chapter 1 God, according to the Bible, would have created or started the Universe. Again the Bible gives no date for this.

Another time I hope to supply evidence – even proof – for an intelligent start to the Universe.

[MormonMason]

This idea is based upon a very strained understanding of the syntax of Genesis 1:2 and is an attempt to make things fit that may not on the surface.

[BCSpace]

iirc some creation myths begin with a Flood. Those could perhaps be tied to the waters mentioned in Genesis 1 which we normally think of as the sky or space or it could reference the global Flood of Noah.

[Cobalt-70]

If this theory was produced as a way to reconcile Genesis with science, then it fails in that regard, because there is no human genetic bottleneck dated 6000 years ago. If all of our ancestors could be funneled to a single man or a single couple that lived 6000 years ago, it would be very obvious in our genetic code. All of us in the world would essentially be genetic siblings, and there would only be at most four distinct alleles of any gene, plus a very few random mutations. Even worse, since Eve was taken from Adam's rib and therefore would be a clone of him, we would be even more genetically related than most siblings are to each other.

[USU78]

If this theory was produced as a way to reconcile Genesis with science, then it fails in that regard, because there is no human genetic bottleneck dated 6000 years ago. If all of our ancestors could be funneled to a single man or a single couple that lived 6000 years ago, it would be very obvious in our genetic code. All of us in the world would essentially be genetic siblings, and there would only be at most four distinct alleles of any gene, plus a very few random mutations. Even worse, since Eve was taken from Adam's rib and therefore would be a clone of him, we would be even more genetically related than most siblings are to each other.

False dilemma caused by assuming haaretz means "the whole dang planet" in this context from a satellite's eye view.

When people talk or write, they speak and write from their own perspectives. So, even if the speaker writes and means "the whole dang planet," it doesn't mean the speaker wrote TRVTH from a cosmic perspective.

Same goes for Noah's flood, Joab's having killed all the men of Edom, &c.

[Rivers]

Trying to reconcile Genesis with science is a waste of time. Genesis isn't a science book.

[Freedom]

Genesis is a religious text that uses real historical events to convey gospel principles. We have no need to assume that Adam and Eve lived just 6000 years ago. The point is that the bible is dismissed due to extreme views of interpretations and false assumptions.